RIAA “report card” gives Google low marks for anti-piracy efforts

The RIAA claims Google has dragged its feet on implementing anti-piracy …

A year ago, Google announced a new initiative to combat illicit file-sharing on its various websites. The Recording Industry Association of America has marked the one-year anniversary of that announcement with a new "report card" faulting Google for what the RIAA considers the search giant's slow progress.

In its December 2010 blog post, Google pledged to take four specific anti-piracy steps: respond to takedowns more quickly, remove piracy-related terms from autocomplete, make it harder for infringing sites to participate in AdSense, and make legitimate content easier to find in search results.

The RIAA grades Google's efforts to date as "incomplete," faulting the search giant's progress in all four areas. The industry group complains that phrases such as "lady gaga mp3 download" are still suggested by the autocomplete feature of Google search. It faults Google for refusing to explicitly "prioritize sites with authorized content over unauthorized sites"—though the report doesn't have much detail about how Google should distinguish the two. And it says Google "needs to be more proactive" about blocking infringing sites from using Google's AdSense advertising program.

But the RIAA pays the most attention to Google's promise to respond more quickly to takedown requests. Last year, Google said the first services to get faster takedowns would be Blogger and search. The RIAA tacitly admits that Google has kept its promise with respect to these two services. But the RIAA criticizes Google's management of the Android Marketplace, noting that Google "doesn't adequately screen apps" before accepting them in its app store. It also complains that apps removed from the Marketplace aren't automatically blacklisted from AdSense and Google Wallet.

Finally, the RIAA complains that, "the [takedown] tools Google has built have limits on the number of submissions rights holders can submit each day and they do not scale to the scope of piracy online." If the RIAA is describing the situation accurately (unfortunately, Google refused to speak to us about it) then this does seem like a legitimate complaint. On the other hand, the recent Megaupload and Hotfile takedown debacles illustrate the risks of abuse when copyright holders are given unlimited power to delete content from third-party services.

The RIAA completes its report card with a wish list of additional steps for Google to take: proactively block "pirate sites" from using its advertising networks, proactively screen Android apps for infringing content, proactively list sites with authorized content ahead of infringing sites in search results, and proactively remove from YouTube videos that advocate infringing activities.

Of course, the RIAA's complaints gloss over the important question of whether Google is obligated to proactively help the RIAA in the first place. To qualify for the DMCA safe harbor, a company must respond promptly to takedown notices and meet certain other criteria. But the DMCA clearly does not require companies to take affirmative, proactive steps to remove infringing content from its services. And while the RIAA didn't want to talk about the subject on the record for fear of prejudicing future litigation, the trade group drew parallels to other companies that have chosen to "work constructively on voluntary initiatives" to reduce piracy—tacitly acknowledged that it was asking Google to go beyond the letter of the law.

The RIAA closes its report by complaining that Google "raises alarmist, self-serving criticism to any legislative proposal to deter or thwart rampant copyright infringement." But it seems somewhat contradictory to be touting the value of "voluntary initiatives" while simultaneously trying to ram divisive copyright legislation through Congress over the objections of major Internet companies. The voluntary anti-piracy efforts Google has already undertaken do not appear to have bought the search giant any goodwill from major copyright holders. Which makes us wonder why the recording industry expects Google to make even greater efforts to help them when in many cases the law clearly doesn't require it.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

I'm not saying that copyright should be abolished, and I'm not saying that the RIAA only represents giant corporations, but historically the RIAA and the MPAA have blocked innovation at every turn. Do they have some legitimate issues? Sure. Should those interests be blown out of all cultural proportion so that the priority of law and culture is protecting profits even while strangling innovation? No.

For half a century now the RIAA and the MPAA have been on the wrong side of every issue, constantly blocking innovation. Ironically, when Magnetic Tape, VCR's, MP3 players, and The Internet - all technologies they fought desperately to keep out of public hands - when these technologies finally reached the public they generated more revenue for corporate interests, not less.

What we cannot lose sight of is that corporate profits are not the only goal of culture. The United Nations Human Rights Commission has defined the ability to participate in culture as a basic human right. Organizations like the RIAA and MPAA, by applying overly aggressive, draconian copyright threats, regularly prevent the public from participating in culture, instead trying to enforce a pre-21st-century model where only a privileged few may be creative, and then only as allowed by RIAA and MPAA gatekeepers.

I give the RIAA a failing grade in my annual report card, in four main areas:

1) Pushing for laws and copy protection methods which directly hurt paying customers.2) Acting to weaken or completely undermine Fair Use provisions, in place for the good of society.3) Not actually paying the artists they claim to represent fair portions of the money collected.4) Failing to actually slow piracy with all of the nonsense they've been pulling the past 30 years.

Bonus #5!: Doing all of the above in direct conflict with their own client's long-term interests with regards to customer sentiment.

So Google is going above and beyond on the RIAA's behalf and the RIAA still wants more resources applied at Google's expense? Let the RIAA fund every measure above and beyond what Google is obligated legally to do then. Asshats.

Why the heck would "lady gaga mp3 download" not show up? How am I to know to goto Amazon to buy and download the mp3?

to be fair, it appears that the first 4 results in google look kinda like pirating websites(i could be wrong i didnt visit them at work, bad enough i typed in lady gaga mp3 download in google.)the 5th is amazon

The RIAA won't be happy until we abolish whistling, reciting lyrics, and paying per listen. Here's a hint from the back of the book: Bring copyright back to a reasonable limit, say 14 years with a 14 year extension instead of eleventy zillion years and people may respect it once again.

So...the RIAA wants Google to spend Google's revenues to prevent piracy...and to encourage Google to do so, they introduce a bill that primarily targets Google (SOPA adds tons of regulative costs to ad networks and search engines, both of which essentially mean Google). They also go ahead and fault Google for voluntarily deciding to humor shrieking idiots.

"Finally, the RIAA complains that, "the [takedown] tools Google has built have limits on the number of submissions rights holders can submit each day and they do not scale to the scope of piracy online."

I'm a little confused over that RIAA statement. Just what is the "scope" of piracy on line? I mean, the RIAA, whos own label executives taking the stand in court can't define how much piracy costs them, and the RIAA can't define just how much piracy there is on line and back it up with fact, expects they can set some arbitrary limit to be what Google needs to meet?

RIAA: "It doesn't meet the scope."Google: "Well, what is the scope?"RIAA: "You just let us decide that and do what we tell you or else we will give you a bad report card."

Come on, get real will ya.

"The industry group complains that phrases such as "lady gaga mp3 download" are still suggested by the autocomplete feature of Google search."

Seriously? Really? If I do a search for "jack and jill nursery rhyme mp3" - Google will suggest "jack and jill nursery rhyme mp3 download" and that download is a legitimate download. The "lady gaga mp3 download" can also be a legitimate download if its for a purchase.

So basically anything suggested that has the words "mp3" and "download" in it is ripe for a takedown or an RIAA strike because the RIAA says so?

So all of a sudden its wrong for Google to act like a business and do business things like make their product features more user friendly simply because the RIAA said so?

So Google is going above and beyond on the RIAA's behalf and the RIAA still wants more resources applied at Google's expense? Let the RIAA fund every measure above and beyond what Google is obligated legally to do then. Asshats.

Stay classy RIAA.

They want artist to do all of the work--and pay the expenses. They want websites, service providers, and governments to give them unfettered enforcement and control--and pay the expenses. They just want everything for free.

Hey, give the RIAA a break! I propose that Google try to help one of the most vocal members out as a trial for full implementation. Sony Music (who brought you the music cd root kit) has been complaining loudly about the ease of downloading copyrighted music.

It would be relatively simple for Google to block the naughty downloads by using the list of artists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Music_artists and simply blocking all mention of those artists for a few weeks (or months). You'd do this for example if the search term or website contained "backstreet boys" or Madona. I'm sure that this would be a success and make Sony very happy!

And here we see what SOPA is really about: greater risks for guessing wrong about what is and is not the letter of the law regardless of good-faith efforts to adhere. The content industry can then use these risks to leverage extra-legal 'proactive' enforcement with no oversight a la the Megaupload DMCA-like take-down that doesn't have to actually follow the procedure of the DMCA or bare any of the penalties of abusing the DMCA.

At some point the RIAA has to stop making enemies out of people that potentially could be their customers. They are just bent because their golden age of people spending $15 to get a CD with one or two good songs are long gone. I believe that most people generally are honest but occasionally bend the rules a little, but if the recording industry is constantly going to be calling them criminals and keep making it difficult for the customer to get what they want legitimately, then at some point they are going to get upset and not want to give them any more money. They also need to view piracy as a form of leverage because from their perspective it is an option to a large segment of their potential target market, because the simple fact is even though they can make headlines suing college students for $800,000, most of the people that pirate music don't believe it will happen to them and in most cases they are probably right. The industry needs to focus on giving people what they want legitimately and easily. They have spent years fighting the internet when they could have been embracing what the internet could do for getting their music into people's hands, legitimately.

The RIAA won't be happy until we abolish whistling, reciting lyrics, and paying per listen.

Actully, they wouldn't be happy until we're paying them every time the very thought of a song passes through our brain.

They still won't be happy, but it will be something they grudgingly accept... for now.

How can an industry that continues to make record profits year after year get so much special attention from the US government? It's not even THAT large of an industry! Is it just because our government is too busy wanking over the chance to get to rub shoulders with celebrities?

Lobbying to subvert Freedom of Speech with laws that would stop Fair Use by outlawing the means to exercise fair use? CheckLobbying to subvert Due Process with laws that allow for un-reviewed takedowns? CheckLobbying for Subversion of the Copyright Clause by effectively removing the "Limited time" requirement? CheckSubversion of the ban on Cruel and Unusual punishment by promoting laws that make copyright violations Civil cases? CheckCreation of an Oligarchy of corporations controlling the creation and distribution of content in the US? Check

It is clear that what big media wants, is to turn the net into cable tv 2.0. All sites and services, unless otherwise noted, would be blacklisted. And those that are not so will have their access sold to users as packages deals, much like tv channels today.

The internet does not exist to enforce copyrights. The internet does not exist to ensure people always pay for what they get. The internet does not exist to restrict access to what people want. The same things are true of the search engines and ISPs that are vital to a functioning, vibrant, profitable internet economy. Trying to bend, mangle, and fold these things into schemes of copyright compliance is not only against the design and purpose of the internet, it's counterproductive for healthy e-commerce by wrecking the information ecosystem. If the RIAA really wanted a way for people to find legitimate download services online, it would have built out its own media-focused search engine, implementing all the features it thinks Google is lacking. But this isn't about protecting, serving, or informing customers, it's only about controlling what bits flow over the pipes.

The IT industry dwarfs the MAFIAA in terms of employment and GDP in every country in the world.

The IT industry should collectively stop hosting any MAFIAA bullshit, block DNS to any MAFIAA affiliated web site, deny all financial processing over the web to MAFIAA affiliates, reject all advertising from the MAFIAA and for good measure, cut off their VOIP as well as sending all their SMTP to the spam bucket.... starve these fuckers to death!

Hey OpenDNS, how about a block category to disenfranchise these arseholes?

I have begun blocking everything I can that relates/belongs to these scumbags from entering the corporate networks I control, and I encourage others to do so as well. (I don't believe the big players will do this though )

... and then sue the fuck out of them to make sure they pay for their atrocious & criminal actions against society over the last 50+ years.

It is clear that what big media wants, is to turn the net into cable tv 2.0. All sites and services, unless otherwise noted, would be blacklisted. And those that are not so will have their access sold to users as packages deals, much like tv channels today.

Yeah, this has bothered me for a while. When (and going on memory here so forgive me if details are off) Comcast, in their role as a last mile internet provider essentially wanted to impose a tariff for NetFlix's traffic over their pipes since they perceived losses on their other cable TV business, I started to really worry about this. Corporations would surely love to privatize the net, control all aspects of it, and start selling it as a tiered service.

The IT industry dwarfs the MAFIAA in terms of employment and GDP in every country in the world.

The IT industry should collectively stop hosting any MAFIAA bullshit, block DNS to any MAFIAA affiliated web site, deny all financial processing over the web to MAFIAA affiliates, reject all advertising from the MAFIAA and for good measure, cut off their VOIP as well as sending all their SMTP to the spam bucket.... starve these fuckers to death!

Hey OpenDNS, how about a block category to disenfranchise these arseholes?

I have begun blocking everything I can that relates/belongs to these scumbags from entering the corporate networks I control, and I encourage others to do so as well. (I don't believe the big players will do this though )

... and then sue the fuck out of them to make sure they pay for their atrocious & criminal actions against society over the last 50+ years.

IMO the best outcome would be to see all the majors filing for chapter 11. They could then be bought for cheap by the tech industry. We literally hold them by the balls, especially from a distribution standpoint.

"The industry group complains that phrases such as "lady gaga mp3 download" are still suggested by the autocomplete feature of Google search. It faults Google for refusing to explicitly "prioritize sites with authorized content over unauthorized sites"—though the report doesn't have much detail about how Google should distinguish the two."

They are basically suggesting the Google change all of their algorithms... What if Google had a method by which the sellers of MP3s could pay for advertising; this advertising would show up at the top of the search results, then searchers could choose a legal alternative.

Oh wait... that does exist. So is the RIAA saying that they don't feel the need to advertise their stores, or perform SEO, and that Google should simply direct all "download" searches to approved sites free of charge. I doubt that if I started an online store I would benefit from this.

They do have one possible chink in Google's armour however; if Google Adsense is running on pirate sites; and they can show that google gives preference to sites using adsense, then they may have be able to make an argument; I doubt that they can show that however.

The internet does not exist to enforce copyrights. The internet does not exist to ensure people always pay for what they get. The internet does not exist to restrict access to what people want. The same things are true of the search engines and ISPs that are vital to a functioning, vibrant, profitable internet economy. Trying to bend, mangle, and fold these things into schemes of copyright compliance is not only against the design and purpose of the internet, it's counterproductive for healthy e-commerce by wrecking the information ecosystem. If the RIAA really wanted a way for people to find legitimate download services online, it would have built out its own media-focused search engine, implementing all the features it thinks Google is lacking. But this isn't about protecting, serving, or informing customers, it's only about controlling what bits flow over the pipes.